Turn around time for CCW permit, what's been your experience?

[NMBill]

Troll-B-Gone

Thanks, Admin

 

[edsworld]

Thanks, Admin

What you people don't speed? Just put your head in the sand and the big bad wolf won't hurt you.

 

[EMtnMan]

Hey there:

Congratulations on getting your permit! I'm still waiting for mine (105 days out!) and have to say my experiences with the DPS have been nothing short of horrible.

The people I've dealt with have been rude, seemingly disinterested in helping me or answering questions and apparently not too efficient.

I'm still trying to figure out how a background check that should take no longer than a week if you're lagging, gets drug out so long.

And to rub it in, a guy I took my ccw class with "knew someone" and got his within a couple of weeks. Of course, he couldn't help me because I wasn't known to anyone at DPS.

Sorry, but this agency needs a serious overhaul.

While I would not characterize the DPS employees as rude when I submitted my application, disinterested would be an apt description. It's a fine line and I can see where some would think them rude. However, I have personally never dealt with (in 50 years) a government employee who was friendly and overly-accommodating. That's just the way they usually are.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

Nm chl

NM is among the last states to require 'permits' for concealed carry. 2003 Senate Bill 214 passed in '04. 'Not all that long ago. The inital Bill, passed in '02 was deemed unconstitutional as I recall. Ennyhoo... seems liike just another unconstitutional money-maker tied to the free exercise of a Right. That's why AZ no longer requires it... (Voluntary only) in that the CWP has a price tag. This violates both the USC and AzC.

Government cannot grant ‘Rights’. Rights are not to be confused with ‘Permit’, ‘License’, ‘Privilege’ or ’Allowance’ or other contrivance. Rights cannot be ’purchased’ nor can government legally extract fees for the free exercise thereof. Rights are inherent, inalienable and eternal w/o interference, infringement, impairment or regulation when exercised responsibly by the citizen(s). (Y'all see where I'm goin' with this?)

SCJ Ginsburg (of all people) issued this 'opinion' post 'Heller' (deliberately ignored by the politicians and the media) on 'Bearing Arms'. 'Cause it ends once and for all the tired old arguments to the contrary:

"Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

This opinion of the 2A makes no distinction between open or concealed as none was intended at the time the 2A was written. The permits and license requirements are unconstitutional contrivances imposed by government on a right which clearly states: '...shall not be impaired'.

New Mexico and Arizona have a shared history extending back before Territorial days. When I first came to the SW back in 1966, there was no 'internet' and no concealed carry. You went heeled openly or not at all. Nobody thought much about it 'till the Gun Control Act of 1968. There is no federal law specifically addressing the issuance of concealed carry permits. Obviously, because no such caveat exists in the 2A nor was intended. This is strictly a state contrivance. Most people have very short memories (or none) and cannot remember when it has not always been 'this way'... or when and why it became so.

The media has been the primary means of disseminating anecdotal ignorance for the past 40 years or so regarding firearms. Regurgitating 'Permit, License and Registration' requirements where none exists (nor should), yet implanting those ideas subconciously in the minds of the public at large. Carrying a concealed weapon makes one no less armed than carrying openly. The Right to keep and bear arms makes no such distinction. Arms... are not limited to 'firearms' either... which we automatically assume.

The purpose of this entire 'rant' is to invite New Mexicans to strive for becoming the 4th state to recognize what's become known as 'Constitutional Carry'. Permits... if required at all should be for reciprocity reasons only in those states which have not yet embraced the intent of the 2A. Carry on!

 

[AH.74]

The purpose of this entire 'rant' is to invite New Mexicans to strive for becoming the 4th state to recognize what's become known as 'Constitutional Carry'. Permits... if required at all should be for reciprocity reasons only in those states which have not yet embraced the intent of the 2A. Carry on!

Are you familiar with the differences in the permit processes of these two states? If you knew anything about NM's, which are far beyond what AZ requires, you would know this is not happening any time soon, unfortunately.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

Are you familiar with the differences in the permit processes of these two states? If you knew anything about NM's, which are far beyond what AZ requires, you would know this is not happening any time soon, unfortunately.

You're missing the point... WHY do you need a permit for a fee to exercise a right? (enumerated by the USC and NMC) Go back and read the entire post.

 

[AH.74]

You're missing the point... WHY do you need a permit for a fee to exercise a right? (enumerated by the USC and NMC) Go back and read the entire post.

I did read it. My own point stands- it isn't happening here any time soon.

 

[GlockinNM]

WoooHoooo!

Walked in my app/info on September 16, 2010. It was issued October 21, 2010. I received it in the mail on Saturday the 23rd. Little over a month. Kind of surprised me after reading everyone's wait times going past 100 days or so. :monkey